MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Balancing Organ Quality, HLA-Matching, and Waiting Times: Impact of a Pediatric Priority Allocation Policy for Deceased Donor Kidneys in Quebec

2007· article· en· W2017372317 on OpenAlexaffabout
Samuel R. Crafter, Lorraine Bell, Bethany J. Foster

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMatching (statistics)Human leukocyte antigenUnintended consequencesBalance (ability)Organ donationQuality (philosophy)Waiting listMedicinePublic economicsOperations managementEconomicsPolitical scienceImmunologyTransplantationLawAntigenInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deceased donor kidney allocation policy must balance the desire for high-quality organs, good human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching, and minimal waiting times. We describe a 10-fold reduction in waiting times and an improvement in nonimmunologic indices of organ quality for child recipients after a change in organ allocation policy in Quebec, Canada. The new policy gives first priority to children (<18 yr) irrespective of HLA matching or waiting time. HLA matching after the policy change was predictably much worse. This study highlights the trade-offs that must be considered both in setting allocation policy and in decisions for individual recipients. We also consider potential unintended negative effects of such a policy change.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207